 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | → | Archive 30 |
User Vrrajkum´s confusion between social ownership and social control
- Someone changed "control" to "democratic control" in the opening sentence, but this does not appear to be a well-sourced modification. Would changing "democratic control" to " workers' self-management" be more encompassing, because that is a broad concept that has been championed by a wide variety of socialists that has its own page with an overview of the concepts' meaning. "Self-management" is basically democratic control of an organization by its members/workforce, which in some form of another, is considered to be a defining characteristic of socialist institutions. - Battlecry 01:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- If this were the article on libertarian socialism then the edition of user Vrrajkum will make sense as far as suggesting that social control means workers control of enterprises. The fact is that this is the socialism article and clearly stalinists and social democrats are not really that much committed to workers control of enterprises. The references use "social control" in the sense of planning of the economy for collective social or "democratic" ends. User Vrrajkum clearly is confusing things here and this view of his is not being supported by the references. Stalinists clearly want everything to be owned by the state and managed by state administrators while socialdemocrats did have at some points some initiatives towards workers control of enterprises but they have mostly gone towards having a strong welfare state and planning of the economy as well as favouring small and medium sized private enterprises. I thought that the point of "social ownership" was to include both state nationalized ownership and workers cooperatives inside that. Social control clearly is meant in the references as state or collective planning of thte economy whether the majority of enterprises are privately owned (both by large capitalists or small private bussinesses) or state owned (soviet and maoist planning of a totally nationalized economy) or owned by the local commune ( anarcho-communism which is critical of bakuninist "workers ownership" of enterprises). Clearly we have to wait for user Vrrajkum to come clarify this. As the intro stands now it is unsupported by the references it uses. But also it is strange that user Vrrajkum was thinking this in his edit wars with me. It happens that user Battlecry was not thinking the same thing as that other user.-- Eduen ( talk) 02:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Battlecry: I was the one who changed "control" to "democratic control" using C. J. Griffin's sources, as this sidesteps the issue of our not having any sources that explicitly define 'social control' in relation to socialism and is more intuitive for readers, as CJG said. I linked the words "democratic control" to workers' self-management, which I think should suffice.
@ TFD: He implies that the socialist movement is less relevant to discussing the topic of 'socialism' than the economic system is; sorry if "notable" wasn't the best word, I was tired. Arnold suggests that the salient dispute between proponents of capitalism and proponents of socialism is generally conceived to be ("on the face of it") a dispute between "abstract types of economic systems," which supports the notion that an economic system is the primary meaning of the word 'socialism'. He notes that while BOTH 'capitalism' and 'socialism' have "sometimes been used" to refer to concepts broader than just economic systems, he suggests that such broad usages do not represent the primary usages of the terms, and that reducing them to economic systems better acknowledges their primary meanings. I am not arguing for such a reduction on this article, but WP:D says that the primary meaning of a term should be the 'general topic' of an article.
With respect to Marx and Lenin, certainly they advocated achieving a socialist system as a replacement for a capitalist system.
@ Eduen: "This is what user Vrrajkum put as a reason for his edit warring with me: "There is consensus on the talk page that "social ownership" includes cooperatives and is the defining characteristic of a socialist economic system, as supported by cited sources" I ask this user ¿where in the text there is being said that cooperatives are social ownership? Nowhere. And so if that is not being said it is impossible that i erased anything mentioning that in the text on the intro. As such you are lying or you simply were not paying attention to what you were writing."
- The second sentence of the article says that cooperatives are social ownership.
- ""Social ownership" may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these."
- As do the sources that I've shown you multiple times, as well as user TFD:
- You keep arguing that defining socialism exclusively in terms of "social ownership" excludes cooperatives, which it does not.
"I only wanted to keep the references separate for "social ownership" and for "social control" since this has been an important subject of debate here. Nevertheless user Vrrajkum wants to unite them for some reason which he should explain to us here."
- User Battlecry explained above why "social control" does not suffice for the designation of socialism, and that socialism is better qualified in terms of "social ownership" or "social ownership and control".
- "In economics there is a distinction between ownership (income rights) and control rights (management). If we are taking "social control" to mean management (we still don't have any source specifically defining "social control"), then social control in this sense by itself does not constitute socialism. An enterprise might be privately-owned but controlled/managed by its employees or the state, but this is not socialism. On the contrary, an enterprise might be owned by its employees or the state but not managed by its workforce or the state (with autonomous management) and still be "socialist". Social ownership by itself (or social ownership AND control) are clearly more relevant to socialism than "social control" in this sense by itself." - Battlecry 02:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- As Battlecry noted, we do not have any sources which explicitly define 'social control' in relation to socialism, which can cause readers to become confused and is why the leading sentence was rephrased to read "social ownership and democratic control", as this is more intuitive for readers and is less likely to cause confusion.
"On another subject if you are accepting up here that there is no single "socialist economic system" then how can you support keeping the current text which defines socialism primarely as an economic system. Which economic system of the various proposed by the different tendencies are you talking about? And if we are talking about the system proposed by the anarchists and by the stalinists we are talking about almost contrary systems since the first want no state and the second want everything to be owned by the highly centralized state. As such my proposal is : "Socialism is a political theory and movement that aims to establish an egalitarian society through the means of social ownership and/or social control of the means of production." This also since the subject of the political system under socialism is also an important matter of debate inside socialism. As such the stalinists want a personalistic totalitarian hyperstatist regime while the libertarian socialists want federations of communes while the social democrats want a parliamentary democracy. This is whay we should not reduce this subject to an economicistic definition. The issue of the political system is just as important and in some cases more important than the issue of economics."
- The third sentence of the article clearly says that "there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them," but that "social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms." Would you prefer to see the leading sentence be phrased as "Socialism refers to a social and economic system" rather than "Socialism is a social and economic system"? Vrrajkum ( talk) 02:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @ Eduen: "If this were the article on libertarian socialism then the edition of user Vrrajkum will make sense as far as suggesting that social control means workers control of enterprises."
- Users TFD, Battlecry, and C. J. Griffin also use "social control" to mean workers' control of enterprises. "Social control means control by the people, not necessarily the government and certainly not the government if the government itself is not socially controlled." TFD ( talk) 13:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- "The fact is that this is the socialism article and clearly stalinists and social democrats are not really that much committed to workers control of enterprises."
- Hence why they are not socialists.
- "The references use "social control" in the sense of planning of the economy for collective social or "democratic" ends. User Vrrajkum clearly is confusing things here and this view of his is not being supported by the references."
- How do you know what sense the references use "social control" in? None of them specify.
- "Stalinists clearly want everything to be owned by the state and managed by state administrators while socialdemocrats did have at some points some initiatives towards workers control of enterprises but they have mostly gone towards having a strong welfare state and planning of the economy as well as favouring small and medium sized private enterprises."
- Hence why they are not socialists.
- "I thought that the point of "social ownership" was to include both state nationalized ownership and workers cooperatives inside that."
- It is. Thankfully you seem to be acknowledging that cooperatives are a form of social ownership.
- "Social control clearly is meant in the references as state or collective planning of the economy whether the majority of enterprises are privately owned (both by large capitalists or small private bussinesses) or state owned (soviet and maoist planning of a totally nationalized economy) or owned by the local commune ( anarcho-communism which is critical of bakuninist "workers ownership" of enterprises).
- How do you know what sense the references use "social control" in? None of them specify. Also, communism is distinguished from socialism.
- "Clearly we have to wait for user Vrrajkum to come clarify this. As the intro stands now it is unsupported by the references it uses. But also it is strange that user Vrrajkum was thinking this in his edit wars with me. It happens that user Battlecry was not thinking the same thing as that other user."
- To user Vrrajkum i have to respond that this was part of my point between distinguishing between "social ownership" and "social control" and having separate references for those two things. Also i have never argued for erasing "social onwership" as it seems you think about me. My argument was that some socialists favour social ownership (either state, communal or workers ownership) while others mostly just emphasize "social control" understood as having the national or local economy adjust to a social collective plan and objectives whether enterprises are privately or state owned or worker´s owned. As such my argument was for and/or and not for deleting one of those things. But these are two very different things. On the other hand proudnonian mutualists and individualist anarchists/ left wing market anarchists don´t want collective social control but they will fit inside some sort of consideration of "social ownership" since they don´t want a state which will give privileges to particular enterprises and so turn them into big capitalist monopolistic or oligopolistic enterprises (anti-social types of ownership). They want an economy of small and medium sized bussinesses and cooperatives with no state planning or perhaps only for some infraestructure building. In their case only "social ownership" will apply. As such this article cannot be presented as finished to the general reading public.-- Eduen ( talk) 02:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- But "social control" has to stay in order to fit social democrats and the views of the current Chinese and Cuban socialist parties which only want to have social control/planning of the economy but not anymore an economy dedicated totally to "social ownership" or enterprises. They seem to want to have "social ownership" only in strategic sectors such as banking and infraestructures for example.-- Eduen ( talk) 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- We also have to take into account the confusing language of the real uses that the word "cooperatives" have had in real use. For example stalinist and maoist nationalized agricultural enterprises were almost demagogically called "cooperatives" when in fact there was no internal democratic administration of those enterprises and only state officials had a say in the decisions and in the hierarchy of them. And on top they kept the salaried relationship and so the only difference between those things and capitalist enterprises was the fact that in those the bosses were the party officials while in capitalism the bosses are the bourgoise owners and their hired administrators.-- Eduen ( talk) 02:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- @ Eduen: "To user Vrrajkum i have to respond that this was part of my point between distinguishing between "social ownership" and "social control" and having separate references for those two things."
- None of your sources for "social control" even define it.
- "Also i have never argued for erasing "social onwership" as it seems you think about me."
- I never suggested that you did, I suggested that you think that qualifying a socialist economy exclusively in terms of "social ownership" excludes cooperatives, which you have indeed incorrectly argued ad nauseam.
- "My argument was that some socialists favour social ownership (either state, communal or workers ownership) while others mostly just emphasize "social control" understood as having the national or local economy adjust to a social collective plan and objectives whether enterprises are privately or state owned or worker´s owned."
- Social ownership is a necessary component of a socialist economy. Anyone who does not advocate for social ownership of the economy is not a socialist. Also, there are no sources specifying that "social control" means planning of the economy as opposed to workers' control of enterprises, which is the sense that myself, Battlecry, TFD, and C. J. Griffin use it in.
- "As such my argument was for and/or and not for deleting one of those things. But these are two very different things."
- Again, user Battlecry delineated the deficiences of using "and/or".
- "On the other hand proudnonian mutualists and individualist anarchists/ left wing market anarchists don´t want collective social control but they will fit inside some sort of consideration of "social ownership" since they don´t want a state which will give privileges to particular enterprises and so turn them into big capitalist monopolistic or oligopolistic enterprises (anti-social types of ownership). They want an economy of small and medium sized bussinesses and cooperatives with no state planning or perhaps only for some infraestructure building. In their case only "social ownership" will apply."
- There are no sources specifying that "social control" means planning of the economy as opposed to workers' control of enterprises, which means that "social control" does not necessarily exclude Proudhonian mutualists or other anarchists.
- "But "social control" has to stay in order to fit social democrats and the views of the current Chinese and Cuban socialist parties which only want to have social control/planning of the economy but not anymore an economy dedicated totally to "social ownership" or enterprises. They seem to want to have "social ownership" only in strategic sectors such as banking and infraestructures for example."
- There are no sources specifying that "social control" means planning of the economy as opposed to workers' control of enterprises (which is how myself and other editors use "social control"), hence why the wording was changed to avoid confusion. Also, I reiterate that Cuba and China never truly had economies of "social ownership"; 'state ownership' actually does not imply 'public ownership' in terms of distribution of the surplus. Vrrajkum ( talk) 02:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- "We also have to take into account the confusing language of the real uses that the word "cooperatives" have had in real use."
- No, we don't. Incorrect "real uses" of the word "cooperatives" do not affect the meaning of 'cooperatives'.
- "For example stalinist and maoist nationalized agricultural enterprises were almost demagogically called "cooperatives" when in fact there was no internal democratic administration of those enterprises and only state officials had a say in the decisions and in the hierarchy of them. And on top they kept the salaried relationship and so the only difference between those things and capitalist enterprises was the fact that in those the bosses were the party officials while in capitalism the bosses are the bourgoise owners and their hired administrators."
- This quote from user Vrrajkum can tell us a lot of what he pretends us to do in this article: I said "Stalinists clearly want everything to be owned by the state and managed by state administrators while socialdemocrats did have at some points some initiatives towards workers control of enterprises but they have mostly gone towards having a strong welfare state and planning of the economy as well as favouring small and medium sized private enterprises."
- User Vrrajkum responds "Hence why they are not socialists."
- So it seems that user Vrrajkum wants us to erase almost all tendencies and mentions here in this article and keep those who have "really" practiced this single socialist economic system according to him. This will mean only those who have never actually put their theory in practice or perhaps we should erase the whole article since no one has "really" practiced this unique single socialist economic system that user Vrrajkum thinks exists.
- From these comments it is clear that user Vrrajkum has not taken into account how language is determined by the use that interested individuals and collectives have of them. We have to report on the various uses and not try to set an almost moralizing standard which anyway is imposed from above by the will of the individual or group writing or saying something. Also you and user Battlecry have accepted that there is no single socialist economic system so the plurality of the debate has to be given its due in the main first sentence of definition. So user Vrrajkum wants us to legislate here on who is lying and who is "a true socialist". That clearly goes beyond what wikipedia has to do which is present a neutral point of view.
- For the sake of having a logical and productive discussion i suggest user Vrrajkum to consider that there is a difference between 1) the ownership of a particular economic enterprise and 2) the control and planning of the national or local economy which is an important characteristic of socialist critiques of the deregulation and lack of social control of laissez fair pure liberal economics. As such there are some socialists who favour more one or the other of these options or both of them. That is in a big part what the socialist economic debate is about. Here we don´t have to decide who is a real socialist and who is not but we only have to report on the debate and the main discussions within it taking account on the notability and social importance and influence of this. That is all.
- Anyway we will have to hear more comments of other users before the banner in the intro is removed. As it stands now me and user battlecry have noticed that user Vrrajkum confused things with his recent unilateral edition. We will have to take the banner out only when we hear more voices and a consensus is reached on this.-- Eduen ( talk) 05:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Eduen: I don't think there are any serious issues with the lead. I see now you are making the claim that "social control" might refer to economic planning. This is addressed in the second paragraph which discusses non-market socialism and contrasts it with market socialism; there is no need to add "economic planning" or "social control" in this sense to the first sentence because it would be very exclusive and non-NPoV. And again, we have no source clearly defining "social control" with respect to socialism. Social ownership is the one common defining feature, even though it has a range of different meanings (in some cases it implies planning, in others it implies autonomous cooperatives). As it currently stands, the opening paragraph is really broad and inclusive of all the forms of socialism, so I don't see what the big issue is anymore. The one suggestion I might make is throwing out "democratic control" / "social control" altogether due to its confusing language and since we don't have any source clearly defining the concept or presenting it as a characteristic of all forms of socialism. - Battlecry 05:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)